RE: consensus?? RE: Textual Images vs. Styled Text

Bruce,

>(1)  I think the precedent of one arm of the W3C (the WAI) concluding that
>other formal specifications of the W3C (CSS) is "not an appropriate
>technology" is exceedingly dangerous.

Good point. My words did not exactly say what I mean.  CSS is definitely 
appropriate for the task in that it will technically do what we need, but 
the browsers don't do what we want.  Therefore, we're stuck in the middle 
with what we want and what we can't have.

>(2)  The original checkpoint references MathML as an appropriate markup.
>Clearly, support by the "big 2" was not one of the original guiding
>principles in the formation of the WCAG.

True.  Refer to my note to Geoff.

>(3)  SVG is still in working draft.  When it is formally released, I think
>it is quite reasonable to expect the W3C to use those specifications for
>logo and buttons -- even before the "big 2" have compatible versions.  Is it
>not the plan for SVG to feature automatically loading of
>replacement/alternative GIFs for non-compliant browsers?

I believe the W3C has already made its logos available in SVG.  I also 
vaguely recall that the SVG logos were used in a redraft of the W3C site 
but there were too many complaints about the "broken images" that the site 
went back to using gifs (and png may be served sometimes as well).  (Ian or 
Hugo - can you confirm?)

>(4)  To my mind, logo's are quite different than graphical text used in
>image maps and navigation buttons.  I think the guidelines should
>distinguish between the two.

 From the arguments that those on the designer front were making, I think I 
disagree.  It seems that site designers seem to be most finicky about "look 
and feel" of text  in logos and navigation buttons or image maps.  As I 
already mentioned in my previous post, Cynthia mentioned a company that 
used text in images as headings. For a brochure, that make sense.  I would 
suggest that company only try for single A conformance.

>(5)  With your proposed re-write, why not drop the checkpoint all together?
>Is it meant to only apply to body text?  Large blocks of graphical text are
>(thankfully) pretty rare now days.

Well, not as rare as we would like.
I do not believe we should drop the checkpoint.  It is critical for 
mathematical equations and I do think we want to prepare people for the 
future.  Hopefully, there will be a day when people will use SVG for logos, 
until that day we should maintain that wherever possible text be marked up 
rather than saved in an image.  If we push the authors a bit, hopefully 
they'll help us push the user agent manufacturers a bit.  Ideally, it will 
all be marked up.  Until then I think we need to keep "preaching" for it.

>(6)  I am prepared that I may be on the loosing side of this particular
>debate.  I would still be opposed to adding the "except for stylized
>navigation buttons" to the errata.  It would, IMHO, be better to leave the
>more vague text alone.  (At least then, I could fight this battle latter --
>smile).

A decision needs to be made and I believe we (the WCAG WG) are very capable 
of working out a compromise that we can all live with.  If we don't agree 
on something the debate will continue to circle and it will detract us from 
moving on with other work we have to do.  It will also mean that Len and 
many others like him will not know what to tell the developers and 
designers they are working with.  If our strongest advocates get frustrated 
from dealing with us because we can't make up our minds, who will be left?

I have faith that this can be resolved.  I think we are close.  Let me give 
it another shot.

--wendy
--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--

Received on Monday, 16 October 2000 17:27:04 UTC